How do Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg propose we handle Iran? OK, do the opposite of that. Thanks

Gar Wood

A world where everyone agrees on things is in no sense normal.

I would suggest that it is republicans who are trying to secure a defeat in the war on terrorism, by the way they have handled it so far.

Our military is stretched so thin right now that we cannot reasonably start yet another war.

Don't you think that the terrorists know this? Why do you think they're goading us, if not to get us to over-extend.

Quit trying to blame the Democrats for your mess.
You've driven this bus off a cliff, and now your demanding that someone else "fix" it.

we should target an important railroad bridge inside Iran.

maybe the mad mullahs will understand that message.

The same news story is covered here but there is one essential difference in the two stories. Let me point it out (Bold emphasis mine):

On Sunday, US officials said they had proof that Iran had provided sophisticated weapons which had been used to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

The US claims have not been independently verified.

The Bush administration denies it is planning to invade Iran but has indicated it is willing to use military force to deal with any Iranian interference inside Iraq.

Senior Democrats have urged the administration to be cautious about accusing Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq.

The key passage there once again is that these claims have not been verified - so we have an administration that already went to war once on lies, claiming something that nobody else has been able to verify.

This isn't a case for war.

Following up on Whisperwolf, three more interesting points to consider:

1. No US official would speak on the record about this.

One of the lessons from the Iraq War fiasco is that all sources should be suspect. Without independent verification, and without any US official willing to publicly stand behind this 'evidence', this is nothing but political spin and should be treated as such.

2. The latest NIE clearly states that Iran's influence in Iraq is not a determining factor on the outcome of the war.

The argument that Iran is to blame for our situation in Iraq is absolutely false. Going to war with Iran will not make Iraq better, in fact it will probably make it worse, since it will enrage the Shiite majority of Iraq.

3. Of all of those urging war with Iran, including this blog, no one to my knowledge has called on their readers/ viewers/ listeners to enlist.

Since our military is stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, it is not possible to go to war with Iran without additional troops. Those who advocate war with Iran without asking for the additional sacrifice (the Bill Kristols, Jonah Goldbergs, and Mark Noonans) are not serious people concerned about US security, they are political animals looking to support a failed and unpopular administration.

Our military is stretched so thin right now that we cannot reasonably start yet another war.

True, but it may not be a matter of us starting another war. Ahmedinijad is a nutcase who thinks that by provoking us, he can bring about the return of the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi.

Quit trying to blame the Democrats for your mess.

Were those huge cuts in our military during the Clinton years a figment of my imagination?

so we have an administration that already went to war once on lies

I presume you refer to alleged lies by Bush about WMD in Iraq. How then do you explain the following?

"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." President Clinton, State Of The Union speech, 27 Jan 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Nancy Pelosi, 16 December 1998.

"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons." James Rubin, spokesman for the Clinton State Department, 11 July 2002.

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators." Secretary of State Madaleine Albright, 2 Feb 1998, town hall meeting at Ohio State U.

Did these Democrats lie, too? If not, and they were instead honestly mistaken, why do they deserve this a benefit of the doubt, but Bush does not? Did Bush, who some lefties claim is incredibly stupid, find out that Saddam's Iraq was not producing WMD (and thus lied by saying they were), while Clinton and his people did not learn this (and thus were honestly mistaken while saying the same thing)? Or did Saddam start complying with the U.N. resolutions when "Baby Bush" took office, after failing to comply during the Clinton years?

This isn't a case for war.

Agreed, so far. But what is also unproven is that the Bush administration wants to attack Iran directly, not just by using force against Iranian agents in Iraq.

The problem here, is that our media goes and interviews President Jihad, and half of our country buys his BS. We make claims and he denies, which of course any leader(pawn in this case; since the Ayatollahs run Iran) who is trying to support secret attacks against another nations soldiers would do. The problem is not the inverview itself, it is rather the lack of this particular news agency to show the truth after Jihad lies. For instance, when he says he's for peace, they need to cut to the videos of his rallies where he is leading thousands of islamo-extremists in death to the US/Israel chants. Or the video of him opening the holocaust museum(a museum for the holocaust, not against)that depicted the murder of Jews and other prisoners held by the Nazis.

Another disturbing thing is how Diane Sawyer refers to the U.S as those Americans, and they make allegations, I mean the last time I checked Mrs. Sawyer you were an American too, so the correct way to say it would be US and we, unless of course you are now a terrorist.

When is the rest of this country going to wake up from their Utopian dream and realize what is going on in the world? A co-worker of mine made a good point, he said the rest of our country will wake up the day thier children are massacred in thier schools and on their play grounds by an Islamic Fascist. Unfortunately that is to late for me. I would rather our brave soldiers take the fight to the enemy, than be kidnapped here in the US and beheaded by these fools for the world to see.

Bigfoot,

Isn't that the lefts way? Clinton, Pelosi, and Albright get a free pass, but Bush doesn't. This is done because the media will cover all of thier butts. If the Clinton Administration would of taken action, then maybe the weapons could of been found before they were shipped to Syria, Iran, or off to whom ever the highest bidder was at the time. But instead he was getting a side piece in the oval office, or he was declining the turn over of one of the world's biggest terrorists: Osam Bin Ladden. It's funny how people of action always pay the price for those who fail to take any action. Bush is being bashed by the left because they know he is right, but want him to fail to gain political power. The Democrats should head this famous Ben Franklin Quote "He that would live in peace and at ease must not speak all he knows or all he sees."

Dear Noonan,

Your clearly haven’t learned anything from the terrible mistakes your government has made in the past. I don’t even want to waste time clarifying what I mean because by now you should know the lies that have put you in the mess you’re in.
I think you are incapable of being critical of your government, and you are mistaking this with patriotism. They could seriously make you believe anything they wanted to Noonan.
Iran might be making an effort to screw things up for you guys in Iraq but then again they might not. I don’t see any proof that this is taking place on a National level. So what they have found Iranian produced weapons in Iraq. There are US made weapons all over the world. Your government is doing what it does best which is to point its finger at others instead of taking responsibility for the grave mistakes it has made. They would just love some excuse to go after Iran now.

You wrote:

“In a normal world where 100% of Americans were patriotic and there wasn't a massive campaign in America to secure American defeat in the War on Terrorism, these revelations would result in an immediate declaration of war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unfortunately, we don't live in a normal world - we live in a world highly colored by the liberal/left's Alternate Universe - and this means we have to tread carefully.”

I would like to hear your definition of patriotism Noonan. I suppose you think being a patriot means you have to stand by your government thru thick and thin never questioning its motives or decisions. So if you’re in a war you have to support it no matter what. If this is what you think I suppose you are right when assuming that there are not many patriots in your country anymore. Most people seem to have woken up and now realize that your administration has been less then honest. Personally I think you should be patriotic towards the historic values of your country and not necessarily your government. Governments come and go.

You wrote

“Still, we can't afford to do nothing - Iran is making a play to be a regional super power, and as long as Iran is governed by an Islamo-fascist government, this cannot be tolerated by the United States. Given the fact that Iran is already warring on us in Iraq, it becomes entirely a matter of when and how - when do we strike, and how.”

You are a seriously ill person Noonan. I’m sure you’re right when you say that Iran is trying to increase its power in the Middle East. But isn’t that what the US has been doing for decades? Increasing its power in the Middle East, supplying weapons and turning nabour against nabour if it served your overall goal? Have you tried talking to the Iranians? No, of cause not. I forgot the strategy of never talking to the ones you disagree with hoping to humiliate them into obedience.

Then you get into the details description of how the US should take care of Iran. This is just funny. You guys are already stretched as it is but now you think its time to start an open war with Iran. I’m not a military expert but then again neither are you Noonan, that’s clear.
My overall conclusion is that you have lost your mind. You would actually love being in open war with Iran wouldn’t you Noonan? That would somehow appeal to your God-fearing twisted mind that only operates in good and evil.

Bigfoot,

Nice job cramming facts done the kook's throat.

The 'Rats' selective memory on their original Iraq positions (back when it was politically popular) and how they VOTED FOR the current conflict is staggering.

Isn't that the lefts way? Clinton, Pelosi, and Albright get a free pass, but Bush doesn't.

Ture, I have a hunch that the reason Pelosi expressed some reluctance to start impeachment proceedings is that she was afraid that the above quote might resurface.

GOP 4 ME, various Dems have claimed that they were "misled", as Kerry put it, into voting for the war, perhaps hoping that people would forget what they said before Bush took office.

Praise Jesus and pass the hand grenades!

I love how anytime someone criticizes Bush’s use of pre-war intelligence bringing us into Iraq you on the right automatically drum up Democratic quotes that are nearly a decade old. However, the point you always avoid is the “into Iraq” part.

True, some in the Clinton administration and congress did make statements regarding Saddam and WMD, but they knew the information they were citing was not enough to warrant military intervention to prove their assertions and that is what separates them from this administration.

No one is giving Democrats a “free ride” for their pre-war positions. The only “free ride” handed out is by you Bush supporters who seem to ignore the fact that it was his White House alone that was willing to gamble on the WMD/al-Qaeda rationale. You keep excusing this president for an egregiously non-existent post-war plan, an unprecedented lack of diplomacy, a blatant disregard for UN cooperation (and yet the continued use of Iraq’s UN violations as support for the rationale), and a continuing policy of ignoring fundamental principles that set a democratic-republic apart from other systems in the world.

So let’s talk Tehran.

Not only does Whisperwolf make a great point, but Mark goes out of his way to characterize trepidation for the use of military force against Iran as a left-wing kook position. What he fails to acknowledge is that a number of active-duty military, many retired-duty, plenty of Republican politicians, countless foreign allies (including Britain), and a majority of Americans do not support US military action against Iran either. It isn’t just the left spear-heading the call for a diplomatic solution; it is all but the most-hawkish elements of the right.

The fact is that aerial bombardment of Iranian infrastructure would do little to curb their potential pursuit of nuclear weapons. At this point in the game it is mere speculation that the enrichment programs are anything but civilian. An American-led strike (be it we or Israel) would only solidify the moderates behind the Ayatollahs, not to mention require some sort of ground-level stabilization strategy.

Thinking that Western intervention would precipitate revolution is the same mindset that said there’d be no secular violence in Iraq. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about a foreign culture, American values regarding self-determination, not to mention international law.

“Going it alone” has certainly brought us all the benefits and opportunities unilateral actions by other nations have enjoyed in the past. I guess doubling-down our bets with Iran would surely magnify our safety and international respect. It isn’t the fault of those who criticize the president that we are in the mess we are in; it’s the president’s fault for having put us in the mess that we are in that we criticize.

Rasmusus,

Funny, your not even an American but you feel your opinion should matter in our dealings. I don't think so. If your from Canada, then you should be happy, because with out Americans, the Canadians never would have gained their freedom form France.

So, Rasmusus, what should America do? I think we should go back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Keep to ourselves, keep out of other peoples business, speak softly but carry a big stick. Go back to the days of the great white fleet. The problem with that idea, is that the left will cry that we are not helping others. It amazes me when those of other countries criticize my government, because we are still the first ones everyone else goes to for help. In that case, we are not allowed to deny others, but in the case of our own security, freedoms, and ambitions, we get shunned by the rest of the world. Irony at its best.

Rasmusus, you want to know whats truly pathetic? The idea that those on the left think these people will just leave everyone alone if we leave Iraq. Also, who says we are losing the war? The media, please. They will say anything to get ratings and back those they want in office. Our first goal was met, we got Saddam out and he is now only a part of history. We are slowly pushing insurgents out(which if I remember Bush saying back in 02 that this would be a long battle). If Iran wasn't supplying these radicals, who knows how much faster we would get them out. I have been in the gulf, and I have friends that are/have served over there, and we all believe because of our own eyes that we are winning. If you want a true picture, not a bias one, watch the Glen Beck show. He gives a more accurate account of what is going on over there. Plus, if the U.N would do its job correctly(rather than make third world leaders rich) all of these middle eastern problems would be squashed before they happened. But alas, if they did that how would these U.N. guys get all of thier bribes from, yep food for oil worked really well.

Rasmus,

And just what are we and the Iranians to talk about? There has to be mutually achievable goals for there to be negotiations...Given that the Iranian government wants us destroyed, and we don't want to be destroyed, there isn't much ground for talks to begin. On the other hand, once Iran wants us to stop punishing them, we'll have something to talk about.

Whisper and Steve,

Only in the liberl/left's Alternate Universe were lies used to get us into Iraq. I know, you won't change your views - but as I don't live in your Alternate Universe, I have to think of things as they are...and things as they are indicate that we have far more military force available than will prove necessary to curb Iran's impertinence.

Question - why would none of the "Defense Officials" go on the record???
What did they have to fear?

Link:

(Ed. Note: Link with obscenity deleted)

You certainly are a TrueAmerican. I have got to find Glen Beck on my TV tuner. Thanks for the heads up on finding the outlet for the truth.

Glen Beck=truth. I can't wait for tonights show. Thank goodness for Tivo, now I can record O'Rielly, Hannity, and Glen Beck. Darn that MSM bias.

Raker,

I don't know if your are being sincere with your comments on the Glen Beck show, or if you are being utterly terrible at being sarcastic.

The best Glenn Beck show dealed with an ex-terrorist. He turned himself over to the CIA to help us, when his orginization wanted him to blow up a school. He couldn't do it, and saw how twisted these people were. Guess what that orginization was...not al queda, but rather Hezbollah. Oh, wait but they are just a polical party says the left. Instead he brought with him video footage of bombings, kids shows teaching hate, a pokemon type cartoon depicting Iranian children jumping at American, British and Israeli soldiers blowing themselves up with grenades yelling Allah. Video of President Jihad leading pep rallies of Iranian children yelling death to America/Isreal. There was also a news type show where an 11 yr old Iranian girl was hosting, but she was teaching other children to hate Jews, Americans and basically anyone not following her(Jihads) brand of Islam.

His show also showed what is going on in Iraq outside of the two battle zones. You see the MSM just shows the two providences with chaos. They don't show the other 75% of the country.Because it doesn't facilitate thier anti-war/wanting to lose agenda. They don't show the part that now has girls attending school(this didn't happen before we went there), the new hospitals, the new universities, the new research facilities and everyday life going on in a normal fashion. The MSM doesn't talk about how money from the Iraqi national treasury is being used for the first time to fund National Parks and other tourists sites. Ally the MSM wants to show is death. Well why don't they put up our war casualties against drunk driving deaths, or murders. Thats right because the latter two would dwarf the death count in Iraq...you would only need to use monthly totals for murders and DUI deaths to dwarf the multi-year total of war deaths. Thanks to Beck the real Iraq can be portrayed. I really recommend nay sayers to watch his show. Also a reminder to the left, your right to disagree wasn't free. It was paid for by many lives long before you were ever born.

Anillo,

It's not the fault of those that criticize the President? I find that statement ludicrus and untrue. If Bill Clinton(one of the critics) would of did his job, attained Bin Laden when he had his numerous chances(he did have numerous right? or is that another right wing consipiricy theory?) then maybe 9/11 never would of happened. Then we never would of gone into Afghanistan, which in turn lead us into Iraq. I know, what am I talking about. Did the Clintons have proof of illegal WMD in Iraq? Yes they did, because how else would the U.N. place sanctions on them. This is how Afghanistan lead us into Iraq. Intel came form the captured Al Queda agents that they were getting weapons form Iraq, then the escaped scientist(forget his name, but he was being held by the Hussein family for crimes against Iraq) told of his atrocities and dealings with the mustard gas weapons. This in turn led Bush into appealing to the U.N. They called for more inspections, which lead to a big waiting game because like the previous tries in the previous 10 years, Saddam led the inspectors on a big game of Marco Polo. Fianlly Bush said enough and we went in. It is all tied together, whether you want to believe it or not. So stop ignoring the things Clinton didn't do, which lead to Bush's actions. Like I said before, its easier to sit idle than it is to take action. Yet when someone does, those who sat idle are the first to cast doubt because they know their idleness was the easy way out.

Quotes are used(regardless of thier age) because that is what was said. The people that made these quotes deny them now, and have done a 180.

In a normal world where 100% of Americans were patriotic

So 'patriotism' has now officially been defined as supporting war(s)?

Rasmus

Thanks for putting up with the abuse from these knuckleheads. It's nice to hear opinions from people with a little perspective, a little distance.

But being subjected to this "You're not even an American" stuff must make you wonder if human-animal hybrids haven't already hit the market.

Isn't it sad when cousins marry?

So, iraq is arming the Sunni's in an attempt to overthrow the Shiite dominated government, which is pursuing closer ties with Iraq?

There is evidence iran is arming SCIRI, the leader of whom Bush has called a great leader of a free iraq, and the Iranians we seized were at his compound, so that would make sense. SCIRI, though, is Shiite, and, to repeat, on our side.

In other words, we are alleging that iran is sending money, weapons, and manpower to groups that seek to keep Iran out of Iraq. You may call them "mad mullahs," but this would be sever schizophrenia.

If we adopt this course of action, it is reasonable to specualte as to the outcome. I'd suspect that our Shiite allies in Iraq will turn on us. Sadr or one of his lieutenants has said as much. If we were entirely successful (success still being a vague concept. Maybe it's the death of every Iranian man, woman, and child), that would make things perhaps slightly better in Iraq. The shiite militias would ahve fewer bombs. the Sunnis, the ones who are the biggest problem for the government and the ones killing our soldiers, would be unaffected. We would spend a fortune and lose a lot of soldiers to accomplish very little, assuming the best possible outcome.

Didn't people here get the memo that buying drugs funds terrorism?

Oh True...

So Bush would have never gone into Iraq had there not been ties from Afghanistan? (Never mind that your "al Qaeda agent" was tortured and later admitted he was lying to get his captors to stop by telling then what they wanted to hear, but I'll run with it) And we would have never had to go into Afghanistan were it not for 9-11? And we would have never had 9-11 if Clinton had done his job. That's what you're trying to say?

Well if you want to play that game...

Well then, Clinton would have never had sanctions to uphold had Bush Sr. had fulfilled his promises to the Kurds and Shiites and overthrew Saddam and captured Baghdad in 1991.

Of course, Saddam would have never been in power had he not received American military and economic support, especially during the war with Iran.

And bin Laden would have never come to prominence without the CIA's help during the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and the cooperation between American business and the bin Laden family.

But of course, we'd all be safe and sound had never come down from the trees in the first place.

Your attempt to blame-shift everything onto Clinton is the typical knee-jerk response when someone gets too close to the central teat that Bush supporters desperately suckle on.

Stop ignoring the things Bush did and blaming it on Clinton. I’ll be the first to criticize Clinton foreign policy with regards to Iraq, but it would be nice for the war hawks to take responsibility for their support of Bush the same way.

And if you really want to talk about people turning 180’s on quotes, read anything said between 2002-November 2006 by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Kristol, or Rumsfeld. Remember “slam dunk”, “smoking gun being a mushroom cloud”, “yellowcake”, “aluminum tubes”, “greeted as liberators”, “the war will pay for itself”, “Sunni-Shiite rivalry is pop-psychology”, “mission accomplished”, “if anyone is involved they will be fired”, “last throes”, “timetables embolden the enemy”, (that’s my fave) etc, etc, etc.

I’ll take “I did not have sex with that woman” over “weapons of mass destruction program-related activities” anyday.

Mark, Iran is not -- I repeat -- IS NOT going to happen for the following reasons:

A. The Iranian Responce - God forebid we actually decide to invade Iran, how do you think that the Iranians would respond to that? Maybe, oh I don't know, START GOING AFTER OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ?

B. Bush's credibility - you have to admit, Mark, after the all the predictions and false evidence(Saddam having WMD's, the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, the oil will pay for the war, the insurgency is in it's last throwes of power, the war would last six day, six weeks or six months, to name a few talking points manufactured from the Bush White House), the man doesn't have the credibility that he did with the 109th Congress or the American people.

C. The American people factor - the American public would not stand for another war in the Middle East. Simple as that.

Iran is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen.

TL,

You know, you're a bright kid - misguided, but quite bright. You'll probably be a conservative by 27 or so - you're first step on this path will be to start reading carefully what is written, and then commenting. I didn't say invade Iran.

Once you've re-read and re-digested what I've said, then re-try your comment.

Anillo,

Clinton uphold sanctions that Bush Sr. put into place? I was in eight grade when the first war happened, but didn't the U.N. place sanctions on Iraq? Not Bush. If I remember right, Bush Sr. wanted Saddam taken out of power. The U.N sanctions, which Saddam ignored and Clinton ignored even further were not even Sr.'s idea.

On to your "mission accomplished" quote. If I remember our initial goal was the ousting of Saddam correct? Well If you google search you can easily find the hanging of one such man named Saddam Hussein. So that statement holds true. The second part of our mission is still ongoing. Like I said earlier, if the Iranians were not supporting the uprisings it may go faster. You need to go back and check out some of Bush's old speeches. Never once did he say this was going to be fast. In fact I repeatedly remember him sayinig this was going to be a long and arduous task. And the smoking gun was found, but the media/lefties said the weapons they found didn't count because they may have been pre Bush Sr....wich is also a dumb remark since the sanctions placed on Iraq by the U.N called for the destruction of all WMD.

As far as the al queda agents, who tortured them us? I believe we don't do that, in fact we can't even hold them in our prisons with out the lefties calling us inhumane. The agents gave up the info because one: they had Iraqi weopons on them and two: they gave up the location of Bin Laden himself. Remember the fiasco of him being stuck in a mountain village? Of course not, because the mainstream media fails to announce any news that shows us(U.S. Military, which I belong to) ever gets the job done. Search National Geographic archives. He was stuck on the mountain, we knew he was there, but the U.S forces were part of a U.N. team. The U.S leadership wanted to go in and get him, but the French(or Sout African I can't rememember) Commander in charge of the U.N group wanted to run this through the U.N.first. Imagine that by the time clearance came, he was gone. Knee jerk reaction, far from it. I just know to view this whole thing with a wide angle lens and not on super zoom like the libs.

Ask your self one question: Would you rather have the islamo-fascists here in our country cutting your head off on youtube, or pre-occupied in Iraq?
If your truly a blind liberal, just go cut your own head off and save the fascist the time and money.

TL,

You said: The Iranian Responce - God forebid we actually decide to invade Iran, how do you think that the Iranians would respond to that? Maybe, oh I don't know, START GOING AFTER OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ?

Start going after our troops in Iraq. Your joking right? What do you think it means when we have proof that Iran is supplying weapons and funding the insurgents. They are not playing patty cake with the money and bullets. They are attacking our soldiers. And why are the libs having such a hard time with the fact that Iran is funding Insurgents? The southern insurgent armed group is led by a guy with known ties to Tehran and the ruling aytollahs. You on the left are to quick to believe that President Jihad is a nice guy. Look up the videos of him leading death to the US/Israel chants and his true colors come out. Stop buying into the BS propaganda he spreads through our own news networks. This guy uses our media against better than the libs do, jeesh.

Isn't it sad when cousins marry?

Yes it is, PM, but congrats to you and your cousin, anyway.

Rasmus

Thanks for putting up with the abuse from these knuckleheads. It's nice to hear opinions from people with a little perspective, a little distance.

And a little brain, just like yours, PM(S). Rasmus is a spoof, you idiot. No way he/she/it is a foreigner. No foreigner spells "neighbor" the way Rassy did. "Nabour?" Puhleeze...

No answer to my question, Mr. Noonan?

Amazing... the most horrific threat in the world...
¿Iran? ¿Are you kidding?
¿A new islamic/nazi state?
¿What now? ¿Aliens? ¿Little green men? ¿Demonic hordes from hell?

The American government always found ways to create new scary enemy.

I don't know how you people (Americans) always live with fear and a lot of stress.

Um, UN sanctions went into effect in 1990, at the behest of the then-and-still driving force behind the UN Security Counsel; the USA. If you haven't noticed, nothing gets through the UNSC without American support.

President at the time? George H. W. Bush.

And I don't know where you heard, but Bush Sr. didn't want Saddam out of power or else he would have done it. At the time he had wide-spread domestic and foreign support for military force against Baghdad and yet he decided against it.

Read A World Transformed where Bush Sr. and Scowcroft state explicitly why they didn't get rid of Saddam.

Then SECDEF Dick Cheney said in 1992:

I think we got it right...when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

So in other words, you remember wrong.

And the "mission" is not "accomplished". I would have been fine had the banner read "Mission Partly-Accomplished", but no, Bush said "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended..."

I don't care how you slice it, but we are still executing major operations in Iraq.

And as the latest NIE states, Iran is not a major contribution to instability in Iraq. Iran is not more involved than al Qaeda, or the Madi army, or centuries of Sunni-Shiite violence.

Iran has taken advantage of an opportunity presented by this White House and Pentagon's apparent inability to execute affective military strategy in a way which would convince American and foreign critics they are just in doing so.

And again you are mistaken in your "smoking gun" assertion. The chemical weapons found were not the type the Bush administration believed they held and they found the nuclear program had been scuttled in the early 90's after the first Gulf War.

With regards to capturing bin Laden in Tora Bora you are mistaken again. US CENTCOM was in charge of the operation, not the UN. I don't know where you got your source, but I'll take the word of CIA agent Berntsen myself.

Then again, your side isn't really known for "listening to intelligence", so I won't be shocked if you ignore this long-time agent's testimony.

I'm tired of the fear-mongering you guys always revert to with the "chopping our heads off on Main Street, USA" stuff. Do you really think that now, in this post 9-11 world, the continental US is at risk of being conquered by the fractured cells of al Qaeda? I'm sorry if I put more faith in the ability of our military to prevent Texas from being turned into an islamo-fascist state.

Your question is a bifurcated and thoughtless rhetorical device used to try to silence rational debate. Our involvement in Iraq sure has protected the UK and Spain, hasn't it?

Ask yourself one question: Has the number of people willing to murder Americans for their involvement in the Middle East decreased since we invaded Iraq or increased? Has our position in the world become more respected or diminished since 2003? Have we shown states like Iran and North Korea that a progressive Western democracy can deliver on the promises it makes to oppressed peoples?

Ok, I know that was three questions, but I think my point is made.

Couple things:

1) The EFPs on display were apparently intercepted as they were bound for the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution In Iraq (SCIRI), which is a Shi'ite group backed by Bush. The leader of SCIRI, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, in fact met with Bush in the WH just 2 months ago, where Bush lauded him for his "strong position against the murder of innocent life".
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061204-7.html

The weapons being smuggled in from Iran appear to be mostly destined to Shi'ite groups that are allied with the US supported Iraqi government. These groups are mostly using these weapons against Sunni insurgents.

2) Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is financing Sunni insurgent groups who have been far more involved in attacks against US troops. So Mark, why is your war lust not directed towards Saudi Arabia?

Remember, almost all of the hijackers who attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, and none were from either Iraq or Iran. Not one. Meanwhile, after 9/11, Iran was very supportive of the US effort to go after the perpetrators, even offering the use of its airspace. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, to this day still sends funds to al-qaeda, run by bin Laden, who is a Saudi as well.

But yes, lets attack Iran... because, after all, the last attack against a country not at all involved in 9/11 has gone so well.

So before you accuse the rest of us sane people of "a massive campaign to secure American defeat in the War on Terrorism", you might take a look the extremely dumb misdirection of US forces that has done more to secure defeat in the WOT than anything else.

Jeremy,

Patriotism requires that you support the War on Terrorism. Period. End of story. No, there really isn't any other option.

Aaron,

War lust? Oh, puhleeese!

Anyways...

Saudi Arabia is no great threat to the United States. Iran is.

This is rather one plus one sort of stuff - shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

"Saudi Arabia is no great threat to the United States."

Right. I mean, Saudi Arabians *only* brought down a couple towers in downtown Manhattan, torn a smallish hole in the Pentagon, and are funding the groups in Iraq who are responsible for most of the deaths of 3,000 US soldiers.

What you're going to say next is that eventhough it's true that lots of Saudis are doing these things, the government of Saudi Arabia isn't involved. Ahhh, I see. Oh wait... what's this??... General Peter Pace "disputes US military claim on Iran":

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm

Yes, Mark, this is indeed "one plus one sort of stuff".

Aaron,

I know you on the left try to turn everything in this war towards an insistence that if we don't immediately flatten Arabia, then we're not serious...of course, if we were ever to take you at your word, you'd be complaining about that, too...

Iran is the threat, not Saudi Arabia - does this mean there isn't a lot of nastiness emanating out of Arabia? Of course not - there's also a lot of nastiness coming out of Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Sudan...but none of these are the great threat, and all of them will be greatly reduced as threats if Iran was curbed in its ambitions.

You need to read some books on strategy.

Apologies for taking so long to come back and comment. A few of the points of what I've said have already been discussed, but the key factor in my mind is at the end of Bigfoot's post:

This isn't a case for war.

Agreed, so far. But what is also unproven is that the Bush administration wants to attack Iran directly, not just by using force against Iranian agents in Iraq.

And here we have the reverse problem. The precautionary principal - does it apply both ways?

For those who aren't sure what the precautionary principal is, it's the political viewpoint (originally, ironically, put forward by those concerned about climate change) that says that just because there is no hard evidence something is happening, is no reason not to do something about it.

The precautionary principal, it can be argued, was the reason for going to war in Iraq. The claim that Saddam had WMD despite the lack of hard evidence; so pre-empt the possibility and invade to remove him.

It turned out to be wrong. The lack of evidence, it turned out, was down to the fact that there was no evidence because there was no WMD.

But now we have Bush saying "We can't take the risk of Iran getting nuclear weapons, and if we have to we'll use force to stop them." despite there being no evidence that they are looking for nuclear power for anything more than civilian use. Again, we have no evidence, and in fact the worldwide intelligence community is of a majority opinion (not unanimous, but majority) that it would take many many years AFTER Iran gets civilian nuclear capability before it could possibly develop military nuclear capability.

Surely the precautionary principal now applies against Bush - do we let him take us to war anyway, despite no evidence that can be independently verified, or that can be agreed on by the majority of the global scientific community? Or do we take the precaution of ruling out war with Iran until such time as there is evidence that is irrefutable.

It has been reported - not entirely accurately - that Iran wants to wipe out Israel. But is Israel America? It already has nuclear military capability, why is it being discussed about putting American servicemans lives at risk to backup Israel? What is happening about Israel putting Israel's soldiers at risk to secure its borders, if it's so worried? Does America drop everything to fight Israel's battles for it?

What Iran has NOT said - unlike North Korea - is that it wants to attack America. Now diplomatic efforts are even leading to North Korea promising to stand down its nuclear reactor. Why is force being threatened to Iran, who have not said they want to destroy America, when diplomacy is obviously working well with North Korea, who have said they'd take a shot at America, given the chance?

So, the question before the jury is, how far do we let warmongers take us towards war with Iran before we say "you're acting to prevent something that's never going to happen anyway." and stop the rhetoric and the posing and the troop build ups.

Think, people, think!

Ok, first off, I find it funny how the lefties still keep saying what you said here " The chemical weapons found were not the type the Bush administration believed they held " . I thought WMD were WMD. So by your analyis and those on the left this analogy would hold true: The police raid a suspected drug house looking for marijuana, but find crack and E instead. And during the raid they find evidence of a recipe for a new type of drug. But since it wasn't what the police expected to find, those drugs are not really drugs. All people involved are resolved of any wrong doing, because its ok to have the illegal drugs as long as its not the specific type the police are looking for at the time. Its also ok to have plans to develop a new drug, as longs as the labs are not FULLY functional.

Back to the Mission Accomplished. I'm in the military, we all were told what our initial plans were, and it entailed ousting Saddam. We did that the Mission Accomplished sign was true. Also we have not launched any major combat evolutions in Iraq since sadaam has been ousted. I'm sorry you probably get your info from the MSM and all of this pics of our soldier fighting. What they fail to tell you is that those confrontations are started by insurgents. Since when did defending posts become major combat operations. Oh, the attack on the the al-queda second in charge, that wasn't a major operation. Major operations involve the use of multiple forces, across mutliple platforms, utilizing air, ground and sea forces(such as the intial storming of Iraq, the invasion at Normandy..so on.), that attack involved launching some missiles and watching them blow up a target. Once blown up the marines were sent in to verify the hit. Nothing major their. I know the MSM makes every thing we do overthere seem major, but most things that are over reported are rather routine or self defense. But what do you expect from orginizations that treat Anna Nicole Smiths death like it was the gravest news since Kennedy's assisnation.

Love your country like an adult loves another adult, not like a 4-year-old girl loves her mommy.

Saudi Arabia is no great threat to the United States Mark Noonan at February 13, 2007 01:03 AM

Mark, I once thought you were a champion of conservative ideas. However with the above statement I am now convinced this blog is nothing more than a vehicle to protect the neocon's oil machine. Those bastards in Saudi Arabia had a lot to do with what happen on 9-11. They know everything that is going on in their little kingdom. There is no question they knew 9-11 was in the works.

Mark -

"I know you on the left try to turn everything in this war towards an insistence that if we don't immediately flatten Arabia, then we're not serious...of course, if we were ever to take you at your word, you'd be complaining about that, too..."

Strawman alert! Strawman alert!

Listen, nobody is insisting on "flattening Saudi Arabia". But if you were really serious about combatting anti-American terrorism, there are lots of other far more effective ways of doing that than invading Iraq and Iran. In fact, you could hardly have picked a strategy more harmful to the US - and more of a boon to al-qaeda - than invading Iraq and Iran.

This isn't about being anti-war. Clearly, the invasion of Afghanistan was precisely the "take it to the enemy" offensive that's needed. For a fraction of the resources and good-will we have squandered making a bloody hell-hole out of Iraq, we might have permanently eradicated the al-qaeda threat in Afghanistan, and could have truly turned that country into the bright shining example of a peaceful pluralistic society that we'd hoped to build.

Or as Obama said, "I am not against all wars, I'm against stupid wars".

"Iran is the threat, not Saudi Arabia - does this mean there isn't a lot of nastiness emanating out of Arabia? Of course not - there's also a lot of nastiness coming out of Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Sudan...but none of these are the great threat, and all of them will be greatly reduced as threats if Iran was curbed in its ambitions."

First, how do you figure that "none of these are the great threat"? Are you that disoriented?

Second, you are lumping entities together who have no relation. Iran, for all its "down with America" rhetoric, is not involved in, nor is the patron of, nor even loosely allied with any of this "nastiness" in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt or Sudan which poses a proven danger to the US. On the contrary, Iran is anathema to all of those nations.

Going into the Middle East and pissing is random directions is a recipe for untold horrors, and for decimating US interests. And it's just plain dumb.

But beyond that, do you realize just how creepy you sound, Mark? All of this talk of "Iran is the great threat...none of those others are the great threat" is so Orwellian. Your zombie-like diction almost exactly matches the government propaganda in Orwell's 1984: "Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Eurasia has always been our ally."

"You need to read some books on strategy."

I wish to God that Bush had read a book about strategy (or rather, "stratergy", as he calls it). I also wish he had read just a very basic primer on the Middle East before striding confidently into such colosally stupid blunders. Instead, he let his simpleton, ex-alcoholic "good vs evil" worldview be his sole guide to a region of great complexity.

aaron,
Don't waste your time.
Mark is always advising people to "read some books" on something or other.
The fact is that he obviously has never gone through any "directed reading" (no doubt he fears the influence of dangerous "lefty" professors), but instead keeps to book lists recommended by the undergraduate heroes of the right, does little to make his points valid except to frequent visitors of this site.

Ok, I get what your drug-bust analogy is trying to do, but you have it a little backward.

If your story said the police went to a judge for a warrant to search and arrest suspects at factory where they were stuffing coke into Tickle Me Elmo dolls and found an ashtray of old roaches in the men's bathroom, that would be an accurate portrayal of the WMD situation in Iraq.

And fine, you want your "Mission Accomplished" justification so much? It's moot.

But when I hear a doctor say they are going to remove a tumor, I expect that the mission entails some sort of post-removal plans, such as stitching me back up. As you describe it, Bush's mission was to get out the cancer and leave the patient on the table without any forethought to keeping him alive afterward.

Mission accomplished indeed.

To get back on topic, anyone see this story today and want to comment?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201537_pf.html

Please oh please, continue calling Americans who have the nerve to disagree with you Unpatriotic. It worked great when it was just the leftie kooks disagreeing, but when the Republican base started having the nerve to question the competence of their elected leaders (minus the Republican Do-Nothing Congress of course) it led to nothing less than a historic gain for Congressional Democrats.

Please keep it up.

Let's face it, kooks--none of you would support any war, any time. You're all a bunch of John Meloncamps. It's Catch-22. Before we invaded and liberated Iraq, you were all whining about NK and Iran. Had we invaded NK, you'd have been whining about Iraq and Iran. Had we invaded Iran, you'd have been whining about NK and Iraq. You're hypocrites, and as unpatriotic as the Fonda's and Streisand's, your heroes.

Mark, navydad, et.al.--I don't know why you bother attempting to reason with these lobotomized lemmings. It's BDS, and you're not going to change that...

I believe Americans must trust president Bush for his judgement of the situation , believe me , anybody having the real time information from intelligence and military about whats really going on in Iraq , if they were in his place , and this includes the Democrats , might have taken even more tougher decisions , I personnaly admire George Bush for his comittment in this war against terrorism , since 9/11 ,he gave his word and he is sticking to it , in my opinion , the US should send a clean up crew to annihilate the cast holding power in Iran and Syria , they havent contributed to civilised development in the 21st century ,and with their tyranic style of government , they block progressive forces for development in their countries , I want the US to send 500000 troops with strategic full force air and naval support and efficiently finish the job with terrorist regimes in Syria and Iran , as done in Irak , these forces must be permanetly based in these countries for ten years if necessary , helping the new democratic oriented governments that will rule Iran and Syria after the operation is fulfilled ( like the ones ruling Kuwait and UAE ), the United States of America has achieved its position as world power through hard work , and pioneering courage , any country proclaiming it can attack and destroy this achievement first must prove it has a better alternative , to my knowledge , nothing better exists , leaders fron Iran and Syria are irresponsible and don't care about their population's future , because it's clear to anyone with common sense that Iran and Syria cannot win a war against the US , in their place , I would keep a low profile and think better how to developp the feodal countries they govern , the US must not allow anyone to mess around with it , it deserves respect and this respect must be concretely shown by everyone